Political Theory and Human Nature | Jonathan Anomaly | TEDxUDLA

Summary

This talk explores the connection between human nature and political philosophy, examining how historical thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Marx have shaped societal structures. It contrasts the views of social scientists, who often align with Marx's belief in the malleability of human nature, with those of natural scientists who emphasize genetic influences on traits like aggression and intelligence. The speaker discusses the implications of misunderstanding human nature, citing historical examples like the Soviet Union's collectivization and China's Great Leap Forward, which led to mass starvation. They conclude with a discussion on the potential for technologies like CRISPR to alter human nature, presenting a future where we can change our political institutions to fit our nature or modify our nature to fit our political ambitions.

Takeaways

• 🧠 The discussion bridges the gap between human nature and political philosophy, exploring how assumptions about human nature have historically influenced political systems.
• 🏛️ Ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle believed in natural hierarchies and the political organization of society around these hierarchies.
• 🌿 Hobbes, a modern liberal, argued for the natural freedom and equality of humans, suggesting the state's role is to protect individual interests, leading to the concept of rights.
• 🏭 Marx proposed that human nature is not fixed but shaped by social relations, implying that intellectuals can significantly influence the masses.
• 📊 Modern social scientists tend to align more with Marx's view, often dismissing the role of biology in shaping human behavior and societal structures.
• 🔬 In contrast, natural scientists and behavioral geneticists find strong genetic influences on psychological traits, suggesting that human nature has a biological basis.
• 🌐 The universality of traits like aggression and sexual jealousy, as explored by evolutionary psychology, indicates that these are not solely products of social constructs.
• 💭 Daniel Kahneman's work highlights that humans are not as rational as economists once believed, often relying on heuristics, biases, and narratives in decision-making.
• 🌱 The script underscores the importance of aligning political institutions with human nature to avoid the pitfalls of forcing people into roles they're not naturally inclined towards.
• ⚖️ The historical examples of utopian socialism leading to disastrous outcomes like mass starvation underscore the dangers of ignoring human nature in policy-making.
• 🧬 Technological advancements like CRISPR and embryo selection offer the potential to alter human nature, presenting a future where we can change our nature to fit political ambitions or adapt institutions to our nature.

Q & A

What is the main argument of the speaker regarding the relationship between human nature and political philosophy?

The speaker argues that for over 2500 years, beliefs about human nature have influenced the organization of society and political conclusions. Different philosophers have derived different societal structures based on their views of human nature, from Plato's hierarchical society to Marx's denial of a fixed human nature.

According to the speaker, what did Plato believe about human nature and its implications for society?

Plato believed in natural hierarchies, with superior and inferior people. He thought the state's job was to organize society so that the superior guided the choices of the inferior, using the 'myth of the metals' as an allegory for this structure.

How did Aristotle view human nature and its relation to politics?

Aristotle viewed humans as inherently hierarchical and political animals, believing that we thrive in groups. He thought slavery was natural and beneficial for the slave, as it provided guidance.

What was Thomas Hobbes' perspective on human nature and the role of the state?

Hobbes believed that humans are born free and equal, without any inherent hierarchy. He argued that the state's role is to protect individual interests, leading to the concept of rights.

What does the speaker suggest about modern social scientists' views on human nature compared to those of natural scientists?

The speaker suggests that modern social scientists are more aligned with Marx's view that human nature is largely a product of social forces, whereas natural scientists tend to emphasize the genetic and biological aspects of human nature.

What is the 'tragedy of the commons' as mentioned in the script, and how does it relate to collectivization?

The 'tragedy of the commons' refers to a situation where individuals work less efficiently because the costs of their work are socialized, and the benefits are not directly theirs. The speaker relates this to collectivization, where the abolition of private property led to mass starvation due to inefficiencies.

How did Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward reflect his understanding of human nature?

Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward reflected a misunderstanding of human nature by attempting to enforce collectivization and communal living, which led to mass starvation. It ignored the natural biological predispositions and the importance of individual incentives.

What is the significance of the speaker's mention of CRISPR-Cas9 technology in the context of human nature?

The mention of CRISPR-Cas9 technology signifies a potential future where human nature could be altered genetically. This raises ethical and practical questions about the extent to which we should use technology to change human traits to fit societal or political goals.

What is the concept of 'procrustean bed' used by the speaker to illustrate?

The 'procrustean bed' is used to illustrate the disastrous consequences of forcing people to fit into a system that does not consider their natural tendencies and characteristics, leading to harm and misalignment with human nature.

What lessons can be drawn from the failures of utopian socialists in the 20th century, as per the speaker?

The failures of utopian socialists teach us that disregarding human nature in political systems can lead to catastrophic outcomes. It emphasizes the importance of designing political institutions that are incentive-compatible and consider human nature.

How does the speaker suggest we should approach the future with technologies that can alter human nature?

The speaker suggests that we should approach the future with an understanding of human nature and the potential of technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 and embryo selection. It raises the question of whether we should change our institutions to fit our nature or change our nature to fit our political ambitions.